Computer: Arch.

It has taken me a while to post my official reflection to our class session, principally because I have been engaged in a fun discussion over on the Mercury Theatre blog concerning religion. Since I've already touched on some of our class's discussion themes over there, I'll consider that as an integral part of my reflection, leaving this post to address the other parts of class.

First, the laptops. Put simply, I was not a fan. Though it was nice to see a Windows machine put into a nice Mac form-factor (thank you, dual-boot), this was the extent of my enjoyment. Though it was nice to be able to back up our claims with evidence, I found that it distracted and fragmented the class as a whole and that the constructive exchange of ideas suffered. In this respect, I suppose I like a more Socratic approach to synthesizing ideas - I did enjoy the beginning of the class for this reason.

From a purely tech-geek perspective, the experiment certainly showed the limits of the software we were using and perhaps even the throughput of our wireless network - I doubt that we could get a smooth image without being hard-wired in any case. Some day, when all our computers respond to voice commands and speak to us in Majel Barrett's voice, I'm sure it'll work a little better. (Interesting sidenote, it turns out that Google's muckety-mucks were very muc influenced by the computer on Star Trek. I think of this every time I am able to just type a flight number or "time in Stockholm" into Google and get a relevant response, though it's still a little bit behind saying, "Computer: Mid-21st century clothing" and having them by the time you get to the transporter room. We've still come light-years from the first voice recognition software, of course: I remember trying out one of the first voice recognition programs (for Windows 3.11 for Workgroups) and sitting there, repeating, "Minimize... Minimize... Minimize..." until the blasted thing actually worked.

But I digress. In response to Prof. PTJ's own reflection, I would say that for my part, I do believe Stephanson's claim. Of course, we are not the only country to make this claim, but the fact that we were founded by the Protestant fundamentalists who were too crazy for England and the unique aspect of the American frontier make the United States' case an exceptional one. I, for one, certainly do not believe that America is the world's savior, but I do agree that this is the United States' image of itself. Our political language is so closely intertwined with the language of being God's chosen people that I would love to see someone make a claim to the contrary of Stephanson's points. (I say this in all earnestness - I would love to see the points that a counterargument would come up with.)

In introducing Manifest Destiny to us at the beginning of the class, Prof. PTJ said something to the effect that it was a great book for foreigners to understand where the U.S. is "coming from." Stephanson has us pegged pretty well, but I think that the book is probably more valuable to foreigners. As I wrote in my substantive post, Stephanson's purpose does not seem to be to explain to Americans how our political landscape is influenced by our religious history, but rather to explain to readers how ensconced in religion the United States really is. In this respect, I think that Alexis de Tocqueville did a better job of explaining American political thought to Americans and Europeans alike.

In closing this post, I go back to my original question from my substantive post: why can't Americans see how pervasive religion is in our government in comparison to Western Europe? Perhaps we need a reverse-Stephenson book to explain Western Europe's tumultuous history with religion and its postreligious nature to us. Does anyone have a good book that they could recommend to all Americans, in the vein of a reverse Stephanson or Tocqueville?